Sentences with phrase «for fake skeptics»

your literalist interpretation is typical for fake skeptics 3.

Not exact matches

McCarthy, as she always does, went big all night in the host's chair, whether mocking science deniers (and beating up Jennifer Aniston) in a fake ad for gravity skeptics, yelling at Kimmel's sidekick Guillermo Rodriguez for not dressing up in silly costumes with her as had been supposedly decided, or dutifully greeting her three guests in a succession of said costumes.

On the other side, there are the skeptics calling it out for being a fad and a fake.

I have tried to impress readers with the need for careful consideration of results rather than the insultingly simplistic approach which feeds the fake «skeptic» monster.

Not that the «but the models are all wrong» fake skeptics will be convinced, but this is useful for anyone actually interested in the science (and the facts).

Just when we thought the op - ed letter couldn't get worse, these fake skeptics have the gall to suggest that we «follow the money,» because climate «alarmism» supposedly brings bountiful research funding, «an excuse for governments to raise taxes», «big donations» for environmental groups, and other similar tinfoil - hattery.

The fake skeptics think they can do or say whatever they like without any consequences and we are just supposed to just take it, and even take the blame for your behaviour.

I think it was originally mt who introduced me to John Ashton, so I was delighted to find more of him today, very soothing to the beleaguered and besieged true skeptic (the kind skeptic of fake skeptics, but powerless to stop their dominance of present day communications amidst a general shutdown of facilities much needed for progress (EPA, NOAA, et al.).

If he had not, how would anyone be able to determine when the larger public was genuinely swayed by skeptic scientists, and a necessity no longer existed for PR departments of the fossil fuel industry lobby to stage fake bouts of «citizen concern»?

Cooked and recooked data is exclusively for brainwashing the Warmist from the lower genera and IQ + ALL of the fake Skeptics.

The Fake Skeptics have being constantly lying that is 101 % accuracy of smaller GLOBAL warming in 100 years + + the localized warmings / ice ages in the past were all GLOBAL for them.

He knows that he is safe, because if the Fake Skeptics say: Warmist don't have even 0,0000000000001 % of the data ESSENTIAL, for knowing what is the temp; would have exposed that:» their lies about past phony GLOBAL warmings have even less data».

Thanks for illustrating one of the key markers of the fake skeptic - perfectly happy to sieze on terms like «not statistically significant» when applied to things that you think work in your favour, like «no warming for x years», but completely ignoring them when it would work against you.

Fake skeptics have been banging this drum so much that I am afraid even many scientists are being influenced into believing faulty conclusions repeated often based on incorrect methods for assessing warming trends.

But even if one believes such actions are justified in principle I don't think it is appropriate for someone in Gleick's position to do what he did because if scientists are seen to do anything which undermines their personal integrity then it can cast doubt in the public's eye about their scientific work and that of their colleagues and makes it harder for them to counter the anti-scientific antics of the fake skeptics, although I would hope that the stinking hypocrisy of the latter would also be apparent to the public.

As the former Editor of DeSmogBlog, most of the climate deniers and self - proclaimed skeptics I have encountered over the years have been paid by Exxon, the Koch brothers or other such industry interests, making a good living as fake experts for hire.

If it's not obvious, that's «The challenge for the genuine skeptic who can't (or won't) make the effort to become an expert himself, is to achieve scientific meta - literacy adequate to distinguish genuine from fake climate expertise».

Even more troubling for the fake «skeptics», however, is that 78.92 % of climate scientists are significantly convinced (> 4 reponse) that»... climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity» (question 22).

Despite this, the fake «skeptics» do not argue this case for it would require admiting an 83.5 % agreement the claim that most recent or near future warming was or will be the result of anthropogenic factors.

That's one of the requirements for being a fake skeptic, BTW.